Models of Language Recognition:

Automata

1
 8. Manipulating FA
In the preceding chapter, when we proved the characterizations among the class of regular languages, FA and regular
expressions, we used NFA. If we convert a regular grammar or a regular expression to an FA, the automaton usually turns
out to be an NFA. NFA is a conceptual model that cannot be implemented with any currently available technology.
However, since every NFA can be converted to a DFA, NFA’s are used as convenient tools for solving problems
concerning regular languages or designing DFA’s, which are directly realizable. Figures (a) and (b) below show,
respectively, an NFA and a DFA which recognize the same language { xa | x ∈ {a, b}+ }. In this chapter, we will learn
how to convert an NFA to a DFA accepting the same language.

a
a, b
b
a
a

b
(a) NFA (b) DFA

When we designed automata, we did not pay much attention on the size of the automata. However, when designing an
automaton as a model for implementation, we must take account of the size because it may directly affect the size or the
complexity of the implemented hardware or software.

2
 Manipulating FA

Figures (a) and (b), respectively, show pairs of DFA and DPDA (of different size), respectively, accepting the languages a*
and {aibi | i > 0}. Given an arbitrary deterministic automaton (not to mention a nondeterministic one), it is very difficult problem
to reduce the number of states of the automaton. No practical algorithms are available except for DFA. For TM and LBA the
problem is unsolvable, and it remains as an open problem for PDA’s. We will shortly learn how to minimize a DFA.

a (b, a/ε )
L = {aibi | i > 0} (b, a/ε )
a a
(a, a/aa)
start
(ε , Z0/Z0) (a, Z0/aZ0),
(b, a/ε ) (a, a/aa)
a L = a* (ε , Z0/Z0)
(a, Z0/aZ0) (b, a/ε )

start
start start

(a) Equivalent DFA (b) Equivalent DPDA

3
 Manipulating FA

8.1 Converting an NFA to DFA 221

8.2 State Minimization 224
Rumination 231
Exercises 236

Family Gift Break Time

Amanpreet heard a rumor that his father, grandfather and great-grandfather had all walked on water on their 21st
birthdays. So, on his 21st birthday, Amanpreet and his good friend Brian headed out to the lake. "If they did it, I
can too!" he insisted. When Amanpreet and Brian arrived at the lake, they rented a boat and began paddling. When
the got to the middle of the lake, Amanpreet stepped off of the side of the boat . . . and nearly drowned. Furious
and somewhat shamed, he and Brian headed for home.
When Amanpreet arrived back at the family farm, he asked his grandmother for an explanation. "Grandma, why
can I not walk on water like my father, and his father, and his father before him?“ The feeble old grandmother
took Amanpreet by the hands, looked into his eyes, and explained, "That's because your father, grandfather, and
great-grandfather were born in January . . . you were born in July, dear.“
- Raman -

4
 Manipulating FA
8.1 Converting NFA to DFA
In this section we will study how to convert an NFA M = (Q, ∑, δ , q0, F) to a DFA
M’ = (Q’, ∑, δ ’, q0, F’) which recognizes the same language.
Let t ∈∑ and A, B ⊆ Q. Extend δ such that δ (A, t) gives the set of next states that
M enters, after reading the symbol t in every state in A. To convert M to M’, first let q0
be the start state of M’ and compute the set δ (q0, t) = A, for every t ∈∑. Then in M’
create a new state labeled with A and add the transition δ ’(q0, t) = A (see figure (b)).
For each new state A created, compute δ (A, t) = B, for each t ∈∑, create a state
labeled B, if A ≠ B, and add the transition δ ’(A, a) = B, and so on. This procedure is
repeated until no new state is added to M’. This idea is best understood by the
following example. a b A
a b c
N
a b,c a {0,1} b I
0 1 2 {1,2}
0 c c
start b,c start
b, c {2}
c
(a) NFA M (b) DFA M’
5
 Converting NFA to DFA Manipulating FA

Now, finally, we define accepting states in M’. Suppose that A ⊆ Q is defined

as a state of M’. This implies that for a string x, if δ ’(q0, x) = A, then reading
string x, the NFA M simultaneously enters into all states in A. If there is an
accepting state i in A, then by definition, x is accepted by M ignoring all non-
accepting cases. Thus, to make M’ accept the same language, we must define A as
an accepting state, as figure (b) below illustrates. If A contains no accepting state,
then state A in M’ remains as a non-accepting state.
j
i ...
k
x {. . i, j, . .k.}
x
start start

(a) Nondeterministic transition in M (b) Deterministic transition in M’

6
 Converting NFA to DFA Manipulating FA

In the example, since state 2 is the only accepting state of M, in M’ we define

every state labeled with a state set containing 2 as an accepting state. It is easy to
prove that L(M) = L(M’). (For the proof, it is enough to show that for every string
x ∈ ∑ *, x is accepted by M if and only if x is accepted by M’. We leave the proof
for the reader.)
a b c Convert to deterministic a b
transitions
a b,c
0 1 2 a {0,1} b {1,2}
start 0 c c
b,c
start b,c
(a) NFA a b {2}
c
b
a {0,1} {1,2} Define accepting states A
0 c c N
(b)
start I
b, c {2}
(c) DFA c

7
 Manipulating FA
8.2 State Minimization
This section presents a method for minimizing the number of states of a DFA. For
the method we need the following definition. Let M = (Q, ∑, δ , q0, F) be a DFA.
Two states p, q ∈Q are equivalent if they satisfy the following condition.
For every w ∈∑ *, δ (p, w) enters an accepting state if and only if δ (q, w)
does.
The state minimization technique searches all equivalent states and merges them
into one state. To see how the technique works, consider the following DFA in
figure (a). Notice that for every input string w ∈ {a, b}*, δ (3, w) enters an
accepting state if and only if δ (4, w) does. Hence, we can merge states 3 and 4
without affecting the language recognized a by the DFA, as shown in figurea (b).
b
b
a a a
1 2 3 4 a a
1 2 [3,4]
b
b
b
(a)
(b)

8
 State Minimization Manipulating FA

Clearly, states 2 and [3, 4] in figure (b) are equivalent and hence, we can merge
them as shown in figure (c) below. Notice that we cannot merge the two states in
figure (c), because one is an accepting state and the other is not. They are not
equivalent, because, for w = ε , δ ([2, 3, 4], w) = [2, 3, 4], which is an accepting
state, while δ (1, w) = 1 is not. In other words, accepting states and non-accepting
states cannot be equivalent. Now, with this conceptual foundation, we are ready to
study a systematic approach to minimizing a DFA.
a a
b b

a a a a a
1 2 3 4 1 2 [3,4]
b b
b
(a) (b)
a

a
1 [2,3,4]
b
(c)
9
 State Minimization Manipulating FA

There are several algorithms available for finding equivalent states of a DFA to
merge and minimize the number of states. We will study an algorithm, called the
state partitioning technique, which is easy to follow with an example.
Example 1. Consider the DFA M in figure (a) below. We iteratively partition the
states of M into groups such that no two states belonging to different groups are
equivalent. Since accepting states and non-accepting states cannot be equivalent, we
first partition the states into two groups P1 and P2 , the one accepting and the other
non-accepting, as shown in figure (b).
a
b
3
a a
1 a P1 P2

0 b 4
start a { 3, 4, 5 } { 0, 1, 2 }
2 b b
b 5
b a
(a) DFA M (b) Initial partitioning

10
 State Minimization Manipulating FA

Now, we analyze the responses of each state for every input symbol in the
alphabet {a, b} as follows. For each state q and a symbol t ∈ {a, b}, if δ (q, t) = r
and state r belongs to group Pi , we record that the response of state q for the input t
is Pi , as shown in figure (a).
Clearly, no two states showing different responses can be equivalent, because
reading either a or b, one goes to an accepting state and the other goes to a non-
accepting state. So, we partition the groups P1 and P2 as shown in figure (b).

P1 P2

p1 p1 p1 p2 p1 p1 P11 P12 P21 P22

a→ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ {3} {4, 5} {0} {1, 2}

{3, 4, 5 } {0, 1, 2}
b→ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
p2 p p1 p2 p1 p1
(a) 1Response analysis (b) Partitioning

11
 State Minimization Manipulating FA

Having P1 and P2 partitioned into the four new groups, again we need to make sure
that all the states in each group are equivalent by analyzing their responses to each
input. Suppose that states i and j in a group show different responses. Then, there
must be an input string (of length 2 or longer) for which i enters in an accepting state,
while j does not, or vice versa. They cannot be equivalent, and should be partitioned
into different groups. For the example, the response analysis below shows that all the
states in every group show the same responses. We stop the partitioning.
Let p and q be two states belonging to a group of the final partition. For an arbitrary
input string w ∈{a, b}*, both δ (p, w) and δ (q, w) will enter a state which belongs
to the same group. Since all the states in a group are either accepting or non-
accepting, δ (p, w) enters an accepting states if and only if δ (q, w) does. They are
equivalent and hence, we can merge them into one state to reduce the number of
states. P11 P12 P21 P22
p12 p12 p11 p11
a→ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
{3} {4, 5} {0} {1, 2}
b→ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
p12 p12 p12 p12
12
 Manipulating FA
State Minimization

Thus, for the example, merging the two states in {1, 2} and {4, 5}, we get the
minimized DFA shown in figure (b) below.

a {3} {4, 5} {0} {1, 2}

b
3
a a
1 a a
b
b 4 3
start 0
a a, b
2 b b 0 1,2 a a, b
b 5
b a start b
4,5
(a) DFA (b) Reduced DFA

13
State Minimization Manipulating FA

Example 2. The figure below shows the results of state partitioning. It shows no
two states are equivalent, i.e., the DFA is already minimized. For this simple DFA,
we can get the same conclusion by the following observation: δ (2, aaa) = 5 is
accepting, while δ (3, aaa) = 1 is not. So, states 2 and 3 are not equivalent. A
Likewise, δ (3, aa) = 5 is accepting, while δ (4, aa) = 1 is not, and hence states 3 N
and 4 are not equivalent, and so on. I
a
P1 P21 P22
1 2 3 4 5
a a a a p21 p21 p22
a→ ↑ ↑ ↑
P1 P2 {1} {2, 3, 4} { 5 }
p2 p2 p2 p1
a→ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ P1 P211 P212 P22
{1} {2, 3, 4, 5 }
p211 p212
a→ ↑ ↑
{1} {2} {3} {4} {1} {2, 3} {4} {5}
{5} 14
 Manipulating FA
Rumination (1): State Minimization
• Here we present another algorithm for minimizing a DFA. This approach iteratively identifies state pairs which are not
equivalent. For the same previous example (repeated in figure (a) below), the matrix in figure (b) shows the initial contents (the x
marks) for all accepting and non-accepting state pairs, which are not equivalent. The matrix has an x mark at entry [i, j], if states i
and j are not equivalent. Blank entries are to be resolved.

a 1
b
3 2
a a
1 a i 3 x x x
b 4 4 x x x
start 0
a 5 x x x
2 b b
b 0 1 2 3
5 4
b a j
(a) DFA (b) Matrix of state pairs not equivalent

15
 Manipulating FA
Rumination (1): State Minimization

To resolve the entry [4, 3], we examine the two states δ (4, b) = 5 and δ (3, b) = 1. Since [5,1] is marked with x, the entry [4, 3] is
also marked with x. Notice that since δ (4, a) = 4 and δ (3, a) = 3 and entry [4, 3] is unresolved, we cannot use this information.
Likewise, we find the pairs [5, 3], [1, 0], and [2, 0] are not equivalent. Now, we examine [2,1]. Since δ (2, b) = 5, δ (1, b) = 4, and
entry [5, 4] is not resolved yet, we defer the resolution till [5, 4] is resolved. Since δ (4, a) = 4 and δ (5, a) = 5, and δ (4, b) = 5 and
δ (5, b) = 4, we mark entry [5, 4] with E, implying that states 4 and 5 are equivalent. Since δ (1, a) = δ (2, a) = 3, δ (1, b) = 4,
δ (2, b) = 5, and [5, 4] is marked with E, entry [2,1] is also marked with E.

a 1 x
b
3 2 x E A
a a
i 3 x x x
N
1 a I
b 4 4 x x x x
start 0
a
b 5 x x x x E
2 b
b 0 1 2 3
5 4
b a j
(a) DFA (b) Matrix of state pairs not equivalent

16
 Rumination (1): State Minimization Manipulating FA

• We have studied two methods for minimizing the number of states of a DFA, but no proof is given. We need to prove that after
the minimization, no further state reduction is possible. For the proof, let M be a DFA (figure (a)) that we get by applying one of the
state minimization methods. Suppose that there is a DFA M’(figure (b)), which recognizes the same language with smaller number
of states than M.

w2
w2 q

p s
start w1 start w1

(a) M (b) M’

Since M’ is smaller than M, and they recognize the same language, there must be two input strings w1 and w2 such that DFA M’,
reading both w1 and w2, enter a state s, while DFA M enters in two different states, p and q. Because they recognize the same
language, state s is an accepting state if and only if both p and q are accepting. Because states p and q are distinct in M, which is
constructed through the method merging equivalent states, they must not be equivalent states.

17
 Rumination (1): State Minimization Manipulating FA

Since states p and q in M are not equivalent, there will be a string x such that reading x in state p, M enters an accepting state,
while, reading the same string x in state q, the machine enters a non-accepting state (see figure (a) below).
Now we examine what happens in M’ for the same input strings w1x and w2x. Since M’ recognizes the same language, reading
w1x it should enter an accepting state, while reading w2x it enters a non-accepting state. This implies that in state s reading x, M’
takes two different transitions as shown in figure (b). This implies that M’ is an NFA, which contradicts our assumption that M’ is
a DFA.
A
N
x w2 I
w2 q

p x
s
start w1 start
x w1 x

(a) M (b) M'

18
 Rumination (1): State Minimization Manipulating FA

The state minimization methods that we have studied are applicable only to DFA’s. For example, figure (a) shows an NFA where
no two states are equivalent. However, figure (b) shows a smaller FA which recognizes the same language.

a
a

a
a
a
a

(a) (b)

May You Have

Break Time
May you have enough happiness to make you sweet,
enough trials to make you strong,
enough sorrow to keep you human,
enough hope to make you happy and
Enough money to buy gift!
- Anonymous -

19
 Manipulating FA
Exercises
8.1 Using the method presented in this chapter, convert each of the following NFA’s to a DFA. You should also show the
procedure that you took for your answer.

a, b a, b
a a a ε a a
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
start start

(a) (b)
8.2 Using the state partitioning technique, minimize the following DFA. You should also show how you partitioned the
states to get your answer.

0
1
2
0 1 4
0

1
1
0
start
3
1

20
 Manipulating FA
Exercises

8.3 Can we reduce the number of states of the following DFA without affecting the language recognized by it? Justify
your answer.

1 2 3 4 5
a a a a

8.4 Let M be an NFA, and M’ be the DFA that we get by the technique presented in Section 8.1 for converting an NFA to a
DFA. Prove that L(M) = L(M’). (For the proof, show that for an arbitrary input string w, M accepts w if and only if M’ does.)

21